Under the Shadows of Qamishlo: The Anthem of the Kurds in the Autumn of Eras

In a forgotten corner of the geography of eras, where the breaths of history intersect with the echoes of shattered dreams, a conference convened in the city of Qamishlo, carrying the burdens of a century of waiting and the hopes of another century not yet written. There, in the northeastern corner of Syria, the specters of Kurdish politics met, with all their contradictions and desires, weaving a new map for a Syria that might emerge from the womb of tragedy or, like its predecessors, be silenced in quiet despair.

The Kurdish parties gathered, worn by the years and weary from their long paths, under the banner of "Unity of the Kurdish Stance and Position," as though waking suddenly from a long, heavy slumber, eager for the possible birth of a democratic, decentralized homeland—one that embraces diversity instead of stifling it, and acknowledges differences rather than ignoring them. The conference was not an echo of division, as some feared, but a clear confession of a deep desire to preserve Syria s unity, though a true unity, not one confined to empty slogans.

More than four hundred figures from Syria, Iraq, and Turkey gathered as pilgrims at an ancient shrine, their hearts full of the fear of loss and the hope of meeting. They came to witness the endorsement of a political document that, for the first time, united factions divided by years and disappointments. A document that called for a decentralized system, the recognition of the Kurdish nation s existence, the preservation of its language, and even the establishment of "Nowruz" as an official holiday in the future Syrian state calendar. Ah, the irony of fate: Nowruz, the holiday of rebirth from the ashes of diaspora, now becomes a legal clause, no longer just a nostalgic song echoing through the mountains of Kurdistan.

And because history does not write itself, the participants decided to form a joint Kurdish delegation to carry a new vision to Damascus, addressing the other components of Syria in a language that weaves threads rather than cuts them. Yet, as is often the case, reality does not offer gifts without a price-;- hopes soon collided with the announcement of a transitional constitutional decree that granted temporary president Ahmad al-Shara absolute powers, reminiscent of a past the revolution sought to bury. From there, Kurdish opposition began to rise, rejecting the idea that Syrian diversity should merely be ornamental in a constitution that protects an individual but not a people.

At the heart of the discussions, voices rose to affirm that this land, which some call "Kurdistan Syria"´-or-"Western Kurdistan," does not belong exclusively to one nation, even if the Kurds have a right to it through blood, ethnicity, and history. The proposed region must be built with a spirit that recognizes all its components—Arabs, Assyrians, Syriacs, and others—so that the new construction does not fall prey to the disease of nationalism that tore apart the old Syria.

It was emphasized that the conference did not seek division, but rather unity-;- a unity not confined by idols nor restricted by coercion, but founded on mutual recognition and coexistence. However, a question, shrouded in ambiguity, hung in the air like a gray cloud, promising no hope: Would this conference mark a real turning point in the Kurdish issue in Syria,´-or-would it simply be another chapter in the book of accumulated failures?

An eyewitness described the event as resembling a peaceful coup—not by weapons, but by words-;- not by bullets, but by declarations. It was noted that this document, agreed upon by almost all parties, was born under clear international supervision: from Paris, where elegance meets diplomacy, to Washington, where the world s major powers quietly draw maps of the globe.

The efforts of the Kurdish leaders played a decisive role in bridging positions, to the point that it seemed as if the spirit of Dohuk and Erbil, which had previously failed to unite the Kurdish ranks, had been resurrected with greater wisdom and maturity.

In terms of content, the document did not-limit- itself to Kurdish-specific demands, but extended its hand to the broader Syrian issue, calling for a democratic, pluralistic constitution that recognizes all languages, cultures, and identities. In this new dream, there is no place for a state that imprisons its citizens behind the bars of one nationality´-or-one sect.

What was truly remarkable was that the conference did not veer toward federalism´-or-independence, as some feared. Instead, it carefully chose the path of administrative decentralization, a bridge between unity and freedom, between plurality and belonging. A message to those who rush to exaggerate, claiming that the Kurds want to tear the country apart: no, here they are trying to mend what war and tyranny have torn asunder.

Yet, like every event, this one had its other side. As some observers pointed out, the stage was not without smaller parties eager for seats at the table of the big players, and some speculated that attendance at certain events was driven more by a desire for a banquet than for a principle. It was as if history could not resist staging its farcical play: faces change, but ambitions remain.

Despite all of this, the document was largely realistic, free from the utopian slogans that plagued ideological movements in the twentieth century. It did not ask for the impossible, but only for the possible, believing that politics is the art of the possible, not a mirror of illusions.

As for those harmed by this event? Three, in particular: first, the extreme Arab nationalists, who still dream of an ethnically pure state, ignoring that Syria is the homeland of all its children, not the property of a tribe´-or-party. Second, the hardline voices within the Kurdish house itself, whether those who reject any cooperation´-or-those who see compromise only as weakness. And third, Turkey, which bet on the division of the Syrian Kurds, just as it bet on other issues, thinking that differences would keep them fragmented.

But reality delivered what Ankara did not wish: the conference convened, the document was announced, and history began writing its new lines.

In the end, we can only ask: Will this conference be a rock on which the waves of Syrian fragmentation crash,´-or-will it sink, like the others, into the sands of shifting disagreements? Only time holds the answer, and time— as philosophers know— loves surprises more than it loves meticulously laid plans.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1